p.s. Operations Transitioning to EWR on October 25, 2015
Jun 22, 2015, 3:42 am
#901
Join Date: Dec 2011
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Plat, Avis First, Hertz PC
Posts: 575
I strongly disagree with this. No one in their right mind is going to spend 5hrs flying from LA to EWR, then layover a few hours, then EWR another 8-12hrs to Europe and sit in immigration at their arrival point when they can go LA-FRA in 12-14 hrs, clear Euro zone immigration, go to the lounge to shower and have breakfast and then take a short 1hr full-service hop to their final destination and walk right out the front door as a domestic arrival.
If that LAX-EWR-XXX flight is $100 cheaper than the LAX-FRA-XXX, and has a similar travel time, then you are stuck. UA can fly you very cheaply via EWR, esp in premium cabins and esp with corporate discounts. Other routes can't always compete on cost.
Jun 22, 2015, 4:09 am
#902
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 295
This may have been asked but aside from JFK and United, is there an American airport of the size/service as JFK that a legacy US carrier will have zero footprint at?
Jun 22, 2015, 4:19 am
#903
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Northern California
Programs: I want to be free! Free!
Posts: 3,455
Not JFK size but with the merger United is now the only carrier out of the big 3 with zero presence - via express or otherwise - at OAK. Otherwise the JFK situation is pretty unique.
Jun 22, 2015, 5:10 am
#904
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,617
Connecting in FRA vs. connecting in EWR - FRA wins every time.
Jun 22, 2015, 5:23 am
#905
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...ents-asap.html
It once ran an hub and had a flight attendant base in MIA.
Like its former JFK international hub it wasn't an airline with a competitive product, network, or cost structure.
The seeds of JFK were sown 15 plus years ago and Delta / AA / Jet Blue filled the void UA couldn't in the 2000s.
Jun 22, 2015, 5:49 am
#906
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Posts: 211
All I have to say is this is awesome for UA's EWR hub flyers - other than losing the cpu which I was actually able to score a decent amount of times to LAX. Makes my flight to SYD via LAX in J that much nicer. I basically never fly out of JFK (less than 1% of all trips). I'd take EWR-LAX in a recliner over JFK-LAX ps just about any day.
Jun 22, 2015, 5:54 am
#907
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NYC, LON
Programs: *
Posts: 2,774
There are plenty reasons why people might want to transfer in EWR than in Europe
No one in their right mind is going to spend 5hrs flying from LA to EWR, then layover a few hours, then EWR another 8-12hrs to Europe and sit in immigration at their arrival point when they can go LA-FRA in 12-14 hrs, clear Euro zone immigration, go to the lounge to shower and have breakfast and then take a short 1hr full-service hop to their final destination and walk right out the front door as a domestic arrival.
1) The former may be a shorter trip - layover in EWR is not necessarily 'few hours' and layover time in FRA can sometimes be few hours.
2) The former may be a cheaper trip
3) The former may have a more favorable departure or arrival time (regardless of flight duration)
4) The traveler may have particular need to maximize BIS United Miles (MM, RDM,PQM, PQD, 4 qualifying flights)
5) The traveler may prefer to break a long (10h plus) flight stuck in a tube to two shorter (5 to 8 h) legs.
6) The traveler may have upgrade instruments to use that can't be used on chosen fare class on alternative routings
7) Not everywhere in Europe is just an hour from FRA
8) The traveler may want access to E plus as opposed to regular Y seating in LH
9) The traveler may want access to true C class entire trip as opposed to the economy seating on Euro business hops
10) The traveler may want to sleep on the last leg of the journey and go straight to an engagement after landing, as opposed to the FRA option where the pax would have woken several hours before arriving final destination.
11) The traveler may not what to go through the transfer maze of an airport called FRA and may prefer the single terminal easy transfer of EWR.
I am sure there are many other reasons, but I would certainly not say that one opting to transfer at EWR rather than FRA, or any Euro Hub, is not in right mind.
Jun 22, 2015, 6:26 am
#908
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 11,468
In those cases connecting at EWR from TATL to a transcon the fare-based u/g is important.
Jun 22, 2015, 6:40 am
#909
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
I strongly disagree with this. No one in their right mind is going to spend 5hrs flying from LA to EWR, then layover a few hours, then EWR another 8-12hrs to Europe and sit in immigration at their arrival point when they can go LA-FRA in 12-14 hrs, clear Euro zone immigration, go to the lounge to shower and have breakfast and then take a short 1hr full-service hop to their final destination and walk right out the front door as a domestic arrival.
$5,148 (P)
ex SFO 8:00am in EWR 4:15pm
ex EWR 6:20pm in TXL 8:05am +1
15:5mn travel
$6,225 (P)
ex SFO 1:50pm in FRA 9:45am +1
ex FRA 12:45pm in TXL 1:55pm
15:5mn travel
(option for a 1h cnx in FRA to 13:5mn total)
So maybe I'm not in my right mind especially when clearing immigration at some of the smaller destination cities is no problem at all.
Jun 22, 2015, 6:48 am
#910
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I said with respect to the competition.
UA and CO used to be PRASM leaders before the merger. UA is now a PRASM laggard.
While absolute PRASM has gone up, it has not gone up as fast as others, and the others have surpassed them, to the point where UA has weak PRASM with respect to the competition.
If I put $100 in a savings account at 1% and end up in a year with $101, and you invested $100 and ended up with $110, I did poorly in comparison. I may have made absolute money, but I can't say my balance has gone up, so I did well. My balance has gone up, but it did poorly compared to how it could have.
Same thing for corporate revenue. It may be growing (of course it is, fares are up), but if it's not growing as fast as the competition, United is doing poorly.
UA and CO used to be PRASM leaders before the merger. UA is now a PRASM laggard.
While absolute PRASM has gone up, it has not gone up as fast as others, and the others have surpassed them, to the point where UA has weak PRASM with respect to the competition.
If I put $100 in a savings account at 1% and end up in a year with $101, and you invested $100 and ended up with $110, I did poorly in comparison. I may have made absolute money, but I can't say my balance has gone up, so I did well. My balance has gone up, but it did poorly compared to how it could have.
Same thing for corporate revenue. It may be growing (of course it is, fares are up), but if it's not growing as fast as the competition, United is doing poorly.
The "market" (the people who buy J/F on this route) is not interested in EWR. The "market" lives, works and exists in Manhattan and the immediate vicinity, and JFK is the airport "brand" the market for a premium transcon identifies with. I deal with high net worth and celebrity clients, and they think going to Newark is like being sent to the ghetto - they don't like it, and won't do it unless it's literally the only option. It's just not a real airport to them and I am not going to argue with a client who calls it "disgusting". If they don't like it, I don't book it.
The facts posted upthread are correct. AA, DL and B6 offer a vastly superior product to UA PS and UA simply cannot compete against these other brands in the premium nonstop space. Full stop. Their only logical option was a retreat to EWR where at least they could try and upsell the extreme west-side or coastal-Hudson customers who may already find EWR more convenient and who might consider PS as an enhancement to the domestic F nonstops currently on this route. For this one, narrow, slim market, then PS is an "enhancement", and it would be for the NJ suburbanites who need to use EWR for travel anyway because they are in the EWR catchment.
Frankly I don't care where UA flies its PS planes - JFK or EWR is irrelevant for me personally, but I do care when false claims are made that PS is still a fresh, modern, updated competitive product in the face of the AA 321s, DL BE/DL1 or B6 Mint planes that currently run these routes...it isn't, and the move to EWR was a defensive change, and not the "enhancement" claimed by the nonsense marketing spin.
The facts posted upthread are correct. AA, DL and B6 offer a vastly superior product to UA PS and UA simply cannot compete against these other brands in the premium nonstop space. Full stop. Their only logical option was a retreat to EWR where at least they could try and upsell the extreme west-side or coastal-Hudson customers who may already find EWR more convenient and who might consider PS as an enhancement to the domestic F nonstops currently on this route. For this one, narrow, slim market, then PS is an "enhancement", and it would be for the NJ suburbanites who need to use EWR for travel anyway because they are in the EWR catchment.
Frankly I don't care where UA flies its PS planes - JFK or EWR is irrelevant for me personally, but I do care when false claims are made that PS is still a fresh, modern, updated competitive product in the face of the AA 321s, DL BE/DL1 or B6 Mint planes that currently run these routes...it isn't, and the move to EWR was a defensive change, and not the "enhancement" claimed by the nonsense marketing spin.
P.S. No one on this thread disagreed that this is a defensive move. You're arguing with a press release.
Jun 22, 2015, 6:58 am
#911
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Programs: MYOB
Posts: 1,292
All of which, they have significant operations at another airport in the market.
With a pre-emptive
to th[ose] [Moderator edits to avoid personalized text] who will jump to say that Southwest isn't a "legacy US carrier"
Last edited by Ocn Vw 1K; Jun 22, 2015 at 3:03 pm Reason: FT Rule 12: discuss the topic not other members.
Jun 22, 2015, 7:23 am
#912
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 56
At SHA I went from jet bridge to curb side in about 6 minutes ... flying economy.
Jun 22, 2015, 7:28 am
#913
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Suburban Philadelphia
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG Gold
Posts: 3,392
Jun 22, 2015, 7:35 am
#914
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,068
If it's true that UA lost money on PS routes on 7 of last 10 years, any change they make is a good one for them financially. Who cares if they lose these HVF that folks suggest they'll lose ?, if the HVF flyers are not doing enough biz to make a profit, then what's the point. Keeping an entire operation active at JFK for only a handful of destinations seems a little pointless.
UA closed an entire hub that was supposedly profitable (CLE) and said it wasn't making money too. When you control the information that is disseminated, you can say whatever you want. It's up to us to question it.
They're not about to say we closed CLE, it was making money, but we're trying to pump up the stock price because this management team has been underperforming, so we have to take a drastic measure that looks like we're improving efficiency.
Just like the JFK closure -- they're not about to say that we bungled the merger, eroded our revenue premiums over the past 4-5 years, and now took a major, high-profile market an turned it into something we can't sustain. And even if we tried to compete in this market, it would likely fail, as we've lost significant numbers of our loyal customers, especially in the corporate and high-value space, which disproportionally exposes us to some fare pressures in the market. Further, even if we tried to win back customers, we no longer have an effective tool to do so, as with our MileagePlus changes, many customers have disengaged from the program, and that is no longer an incentive to win back customers when we screw up in the way we did over the past 4 years.
It's much easier to say we were losing money. Those are internal figures, with some wiggle room in how they allocate "costs" so they can stack the deck and position it either way if they want to. People will accept it as fact, and then the decision makes sense.
PRASM and corporate revenue didn't start at the same point and if you're going to use percentage changes to determine success of a specific route you should at least normalize the data first. Playing fast and loose with numbers doesn't help prove the point that moving ps is a bad idea.
Bottom line, this management team has made a series of blunders post merger that have put the airline in a worse position than it would have otherwise been.
Yes, they have made money, but that's easy in a good economy with high fares, and they have not made money to the same level that they could have (and frankly, with the hand they were dealt, should have) when you look at how they performed with respect to the competition.
There is no reason to believe that the management team, with a track record of nearly 5 years of making mostly poor and shortsighted decisions that hurt the company financially, all of a sudden is making a brilliant decision to exit a major market.
Jun 22, 2015, 7:42 am
#915
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,397